GNT grammar does not support “ God the son”

Greek paganism would have no problems with God becoming a man, even three men (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) (cf. American Pie song..."three men I admire most...") I'm surprised that JM has not raised that possibility.
The Hebrew Bible had no problem with God and angels becoming men. Why should I?
 
The text in Genesis says “ Angels.”
Gen. 18:2 "He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth."
In the bible Angels look like men when they come down to earth.
Where does the Bible say that "Angels look like men when they come down to earth"? Don't forget that according to the logic you have used in this thread you must have this specific phrase in order for it to count.
Where does the text say they “became” men ?
This is not what we were discussing. Do try to keep up.
 
Where does the Bible say that "Angels look like men when they come down to earth"? Don't forget that according to the logic you have used in this thread you must have this specific phrase in order for it to count.
Hebrews 13:2

This is not what we were discussing. Do try to keep up.

That is exactly what you are arguing. Your argument is that two angels in Genesis 18 became men when they visited Abraham from Heaven, and the third one was not even an Angel, but God himself who became a man at the same time.

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city.
 
But God's being a spirit does not mean he cannot become a man.
Only by being born deprived of God's glory. You have some weird ideas. It seems your conception of YHWH is that of a pagan deity.

Seventh anathema of Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome, 381. "We pronounce anathema against them who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul."
 
Last edited:
Only by being born deprived of God's glory. You have some wierd ideas. It seems your conception of YHWH is that of a pagan deity.

Seventh anathema of Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome, 381. "We pronounce anathema against them who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul."

Yeah he does, unfortunately. He doesn't seem to comprehend the bible teaching that angels sometimes look like human beings. In Daniel we have another instance:


On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, I was by the great Tigris River. 5 When I looked up, I saw a man dressed in linen, and he had a belt made of gold from Uphaz around his waist. 6 His body was like beryl. His face looked like lightning. His eyes were like flaming torches. His arms and legs looked like polished bronze. When he spoke, his voice sounded like the roar of a crowd. 7 I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision. The men with me didn’t see the vision. Yet, they started to tremble violently, and they quickly hid themselves. 8 So I was left alone to see this grand vision. I had no strength left in me. My face turned deathly pale, and I was helpless.

This is an angel from Heaven and no man, but the bible calls him a "man" because he resembled one. "John Milton's" eyes are closed to the simplest of scriptures because of his paganism and his worship of three false gods pretending to be one god ("Trinity"). This kind of blindness was foretold by apostle Paul at 2 Cor. 4:4.
 
Hebrews 13:2
It doesn’t say what you are asserting.
That is exactly what you are arguing. Your argument is that two angels in Genesis 18 became men when they visited Abraham from Heaven, and the third one was not even an Angel, but God himself who became a man at the same time.
I’ve never said this. I said they were men.
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city.
What’s your point? If there’s no contradiction with angels being men why do you think there a contradiction with God being a man?
 
Only by being born deprived of God's glory. You have some weird ideas. It seems your conception of YHWH is that of a pagan deity.
You have some strange idea that having different aspects makes one a different being. Samuel didn’t stop being Samuel or stop being human because he no longer had a earthly body.
Seventh anathema of Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome, 381. "We pronounce anathema against them who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul."
I’ve never said or implied this. You can’t even get what people have actually said right; you don’t need to compound your errors by imagining things.
 
Yeah he does, unfortunately. He doesn't seem to comprehend the bible teaching that angels sometimes look like human beings. In Daniel we have another instance:




This is an angel from Heaven and no man, but the bible calls him a "man" because he resembled one. "John Milton's" eyes are closed to the simplest of scriptures because of his paganism and his worship of three false gods pretending to be one god ("Trinity"). This kind of blindness was foretold by apostle Paul at 2 Cor. 4:4.
You and cjab can’t even see the inconsistencies in the way you approach these similar ideas. You claim Jesus can’t be God because the texts say he’s a man, yet you claim the angels can’t be men because they are angels. Do you see your problem yet?
 
Back
Top